|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Nov 26, 2008 20:51:25 GMT -5
Hello everyone,
Upon doing research for my Alamo graphic novel titled Chosen Destiny, I run into bumps in the road. One of the biggest bumps, embarrassingly, is my understanding of the intricate politics that started the revolution.
From the motives of the Tejanos, the American colonists, to the centralist army of Mexico, and the crumbling Provisional Government of Texas; I am having a hard timing putting the pieces together. Maybe I'm trying to understand too much in such a short period of time. I have plenty of books in my Alamo library, but am often overwhelmed by the amount of information coming towards me. Often, I feel I've got a grasp, but then something entirely different pops up which causes great frustration for myself.
Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated. Until then, I will continue reading Texian Iliad,The Alamo Story, and other books and publications to get a better grasp.
I look forward in participating in this discussion. Thank you!
~Wade
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Nov 26, 2008 21:54:24 GMT -5
Wade,
I don't think you'll find anything more informative or accessable than the 2 books you've mentioned to get you started. H.W. Brands' book, "Lone Star Nation" is an enjoyable read, but some of his conclusions are questionable, if I recall.
Hunker down and read the stuff over and over until you "get it". It's the only way you'll ever understand it, and it's worth the effort. There are no short cuts if you're serious about studying the period. It's a lot of hard work.
Once you get the big picture sorted out, some of the details will fall into place. Then, you'll be in a better position to ask specific questions.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Nov 26, 2008 21:58:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cantador4u on Nov 27, 2008 4:07:20 GMT -5
I'm of the belief that we often try to explain eras or events by assigning a single motivating cause or factor. In the case of the Texas political scene of 1835-36 some would say it was all motivated by the desire to extend slavery to Texas. Others would say it was because of the American settlers love of freedom, and others would say it was a ploy by the US to steal land from Mexico. They're all correct, a little bit, but any single factor is not enough to explain everything.
Life is messy and complicated. Consider the various factions within your own family and expand that to a nation. I suspect that within the walls of the Alamo in 1836 were people who saw the situation differently. Maybe what mattered was that the convergence of all these different views resulted in the Texas revolution.
Caution: The author of the above drivel has no training in history nor political science. He just felt like giving you the benefit of what he calls his "wisdom".
- Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
|
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Nov 27, 2008 5:49:29 GMT -5
Thank you Jim, Lorenzo, and cantador4u, for your words and suggestions!
Jim, I suppose I can grow impatient and the impulse is there to find the answers immediately. It's a bad habit, but in order to be a serious student of the Alamo, I understand that one must sit down and devote hours digesting all of the information that is out there. Indeed, it is time for me to do so and I will begin with the two volumes I mentioned in my first post. This weekend will be the perfect opportunity.
Lorenzo, I'll check out those links. No doubt, they will be useful.
And Paul, I appreciate your post. While some motives may have been similar, each man had their own reason for getting involved in the revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by lorinfriesen on Nov 27, 2008 7:02:11 GMT -5
This is a good point Paul.
The Texas Revolution was simply a defensive act, the necessary result of a clash of cultures, "that you must explain" leading to calamity. As I have tried to explain in my reasons for painting "The Rise Begins", there was a general understanding of mistrust by the Americanized citizenry of the emerging Centralist Government. A government that could and was altering their destiny, dissolving their established freedoms. The question was how and what could this disjointed Texas do about it?
Enter the return of Stephen F. Austin!!! It was this expression of his dream penned in a recent letter "it may become a question of to be, or not to be. And in that event, the great law of nature—self preservation—operates and supersedes all other laws." that became the faith for his unifying revolt against Santa Anna's militarization!
The circular Austin first sent out September 19th was not his only cry for war as, he followed this daily with other letters and correspondence calling, preparing for the same.
The motivation for war as he saw it was for their defense! As Austin stated it "War is our only resource. There is no other remedy but to defend our rights our country & our selves by force of arms."
Prior to this revolt, the day by day poitics and derisions were still livable! It was Austin who saw Cos coming to militarize Texas as cause to action, to WAR! After this, all of the many Texas' causes became as one at Bexar... yet, then came Sam Houston to contend with!
Wade, this book is an exciting Destiny you have Chosen! Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 27, 2008 9:02:55 GMT -5
Wade, I'm with Paul on this one. There was no defining combination of ideas and events. I've mentioned before the parallels with the Civil War (by whatever name you prefer to call it) and the Texan revolution began not in a vacuum but as part of an ongoing Mexican civil war between Federalistas and Centralistas. Arguably the separation of Anglo-Texas was inevitable. Under the guidance of Grant and his colleagues it might have been part of the Republic of Rio Grande. Instead Austin and Houston tied it to the other republic next door.
To reduce this to a graphic format rather than dense print is impossible. All that you can do is resort to that well-known literary device of presenting one character as a Federalist, another at an American, one or two undecided and others of differing shades of opinion - and if the result suggests a certain degree of chaos and lack of coherent direction then you might just be getting there
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 27, 2008 12:32:28 GMT -5
Wade,
I'll echo Jim, and Paul you're asking a very complex question, and it's hard to find the answer without doing the reading.
As an example, you're contemplating moving to Texas, if you were to set down an analyze it, I imagine you would find it's not one thing, but dozens of factors that are going into your decision - likewise with each individual Texian and Tejano - never mind yet the collective decision.
Another factor to bear in mind is each person's decision is also made based on his status. It's a lot easier decision for a young man like Daniel Cloud, looking to build his future, whose total possessions are in his saddlebags or packhorse to go to war, than an Almeron Dickinson who is older, owns land, a business, and has a family depending on him. Even more so with a significantly older man such as Crockett. This factor especially bears out when looking at the reluctance of most of the long time colonists to go to war - until the Alamo and Goliad.
Another thing to look at is as President Bush calls it "this vision thing". Most people don't really think about an "endstate" when they make a decision to take action. They merely decide that something must be done to change the current situation. Stuart makes a good argument that Grant had a vision, an endstate, that he actively worked for. Obviously, Santa Anna did, too, as did Houston. The fact that Houston's endstate was the closest one that ended up being created (and even his was corrupted by circumstances) is a whole other story - than why people went to war originally.
|
|
|
|
Post by alamonorth on Nov 27, 2008 13:20:09 GMT -5
If you are serious and don't mind some heavy reading I would reccomend
Rise of the Lone Star Andreas Reichstein 1989
The Texas Revolutionary Experience. Paul Lack 1992
Lone Star Rising. William Davis. 2004
New Orleans and the Texas Revolution. Edward Miller. 2004
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Guillermo on Dec 13, 2008 6:58:34 GMT -5
Hola Amigos! Texas independence was rooted in the simple desire to pursue one’s life with minimal interference of distal central government, whether that was from colonial Spain, the USA of the North and Mexico. The politics began with a clash of that desire and stifling, exploitative and corrupt central governments (Spain, Mexico, USA). Everything after that was cosmetic technical detail. Seasons Greetings: Feliz Navidad--Happy New Year from Sons of DeWitt Colony TexasVisit this month's feature: José Antonio Navarro DEWITT COLONY COMMISSIONER ----SIGNER TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE --------CIVIC LEADER & TEXAS PATRIOT Unwavering supporter of the DeWitt Colony ----Hispanic Texian Delegate Texas Statehood Convention 1845 --------Republic and State of Texas Senator ------------Voted for secession, 4 sons (two captains) served the CSA "I have sworn to be a Texan. I shall not forswear." ...Montclova, 2nd. day of March 1835...Senator for the State of Coahuila to the Genl. Congress of Mexico...2nd. of March 1836...subscribing to the declaration of the Independence of Texas...sufferings, the loss of property, and afflictions...the impulse of liberty conquered them all.--Lamar Papers Staved off limiting suffrage in the new Republic to the "free white population"....contended the words "white" in any legislation were "odious" and "ridiculous." "I write in order to inform our Americans, however indignant some of them among us may be, who with base, aggressive pretexts want to uproot from this classic land its legitimate people who are the descendants of those who fifty years ago spilled their blood searching for the liberty of which we now vaingloriously boast." An 1835 Christmas letter from the DeWitt Colonists |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Nuckols on Sept 28, 2009 1:46:13 GMT -5
Friends,
The member who posted this will recognize it. It strikes me as a good rule for anybody to observe:
"it is pretty much up to each person to define what it means"
Tom
|
|
